Since September 2015, when Los Angeles officially announced its intention to bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics, many believed the race would ultimately come down to one of two cities: Los Angeles or Paris. In recent months, IOC president Thomas Bach has floated the unprecedented idea of awarding both the 2024 and 2028 Games this summer, giving each city the ability to declare itself a "winner" while the IOC locks in two highly regarded bids at a time when fewer cities want anything to do with hosting an Olympics.
Now it appears more likely than ever that will ultimately happen.
On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the International Olympic Committee is working to get the two bid committees left in the next Summer Games sweepstakes to agree to a deal that would give Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028. If both cities consent to an unprecedented, pre-arranged dual award, it would end what has been an increasingly chippy campaign. What's at stake? We explain below:
Why does the IOC think Paris is the better choice for 2024 than Los Angeles?
It has been widely reported in the Journal and other publications that the financing for several of the projects tied to the Paris bid will only be available for 2024 and not 2028 -- notably with regard to the athletes' Olympic Village, a complex that would be converted to affordable housing after the Games, and whose developer says construction can't wait. L.A.'s plan appears to have more flexibility for either cycle. In addition, 2024 is the 100-year anniversary of the 1924 Paris Games. Although the IOC says sentiment doesn't matter in the bid process, the anniversary could influence its decision -- as does the fact that France is an important sporting country that has bid unsuccessfully on several other occasions in the past 20 years and the IOC wants to keep it in the fold.
When asked for comment, the International Olympic Committee on Wednesday referred to comments made by Bach at a press conference earlier this week:
"We are in an exceptional position with regard to 2024," Bach said Tuesday. "In the Olympic movement, we should be like an athlete, never complacent. We are very happy with the choice for 2024, but we would not be in sport if we did not at least explore how to even improve the situation -- to make it even better by a potential double allocation.
"We are studying the situation because it is such a great opportunity. We will find out if it is possible to have a situation where one success can follow another."
What is the big deal? Why does it matter if L.A. hosts in 2024 or 2028?
The biggest issue here is risk. Four more years means almost double the waiting and preparation period during which changes in the economy, a natural disaster or a terrorist attack could increase the cost and/or affect public support for the Games. Los Angeles has built its bid on the claim that its privately funded Games won't cost taxpayers a dime. On the plus side, for a technologically driven bid like L.A.'s, four more years would allow California's tech experts that much more time to create a digitally driven plan to reach a younger Olympic audience.
What do the cities prefer?
Publicly, both Olympic bid committees will tell you they want the right to host in 2024, not 2028. Paris bid leaders have been emphatic that they won't return for 2028 given the issues above. L.A.'s position is that its "no risk" Games are exactly what the IOC needs in 2024, not 2028. The fight to be first has increased the chippiness between the two parties with subtle digs flying back and forth.
At a convention in Denmark in April, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said, "we believe the Games are so much more than entertainment -- more than a branch of show business." Co-bid chair Tony Estanguet later added, "the answers to the questions we face do not lie in just storytelling or technology," a reference to the L.A. bid's Hollywood ties. During his presentation, LA 2024 chief executive officer Gene Sykes commented, "We could have built a new village but it would have been irresponsible to do so," perhaps a veiled jab at Paris' plans for a brand new Olympic Village. L.A. mayor Eric Garcetti has added, "We would love to visit our friends in Paris in 2028."
If the IOC awards Paris 2024 and L.A. 2028, does that essentially mean L.A. "lost?"
Not exactly. In many ways, that is what's being discussed now. Representatives from the USOC and LA 2024 bid were tight-lipped Tuesday about the Wall Street Journal report and refused to confirm or deny its accuracy, while a Paris bid spokesperson issued this statement to ESPN on Wednesday:
"Paris 2024 has always been clear that we bid for the right to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2024. We have built our campaign and total public and political support with this aim and we have no reason to change our focus at this moment in the bidding process. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage."
But the reality is both cities need to walk away able to claim victory to their supporters. Having said that, given the additional risk above, as well as the need to possibly renegotiate some of the contracts with potential venues, there is likely to be some sort of compensation heading L.A.'s way if it is awarded the 2028 Games. Is that a straight lump sum of cash? Is it the promise that baseball will return to the Games again after Tokyo in 2020 (the sport has a strong base in California)? A tweak to the revenue-sharing plan? Since 1988, as part of the Olympic host city contract, the IOC has cut a check for a predetermined amount to help host cities cover the cost of the Games. That amount is expected to be at least $1.7 billion in 2024 (it was $1.5 billion for Rio in 2016). Could it increase again for 2028? L.A. is in a strong negotiating position, and these are the details it will likely be hammering out this summer for L.A. to concede 2024 to Paris.
One other element to consider: rewarding the 2028 Games to Los Angeles now would prevent the city from having the expense of going through the entire song-and-dance bid process in another attempt to woo the IOC for 2028. That process alone often costs cities in excess of $40 million to $50 million.
I always thought the IOC loved the drama and intrigue from the big process; why would it want to eliminate four years of cities falling over themselves to host the Games?
Because the IOC has finally come to the realization that cities are no longer falling all over one another with bottomless pots of money for a chance to host the Olympics. For the 2024 Games alone, Boston, Budapest, Hamburg, Istanbul and Rome all bagged once-promising bids due to public pressure. Last month's IOC Evaluation Commission visits to L.A. and Paris confirmed what the IOC already assumed: that L.A. and Paris both have top-notch bids that potentially could help change the narrative of runaway spending.
What's next?
The IOC executive board will meet on June 9 to discuss the findings from a working group composed of the body's four vice presidents that Bach asked to explore the possibility of awarding two Olympic Games at once. It is expected that Bach will support the proposal, and he has shown during his tenure that he can persuade most members to fall into line. In July, IOC members will convene in Lausanne, Switzerland, and vote on a proposed procedure. If passed, you can expect a pretty anticlimactic IOC Congress in Lima, Peru, on Sept. 13. What remains to be seen is whether a majority of IOC members will be willing to completely forfeit not only the quadrennial suspense, but arguably the biggest individual power they have -- their bid vote. Committing to the dual award would give the IOC an opportunity to revamp its bid process yet again in hopes of attracting more suitors and staking out more common-sense boundaries for the event.